ProPublica – “The Department of Government Efficiency is funded and acts like a federal agency. But the White House has shielded DOGE from the rules that govern such agencies, ProPublica found as it examines the group and expands a list of DOGE workers. While Elon Musk and his underlings demand budget cuts and layoffs across the federal government, funding for their agency – the Department of Government Efficiency – has soared to nearly $40 million, ProPublica found in a review of Office of Management and Budget records. Billionaire investor Musk has called DOGE “maximally transparent.” President Donald Trump has said that some 100 people work for the group, but his administration has refused to make information about DOGE’s spending and operations public. In an effort to gain a clearer understanding of DOGE’s inner workings, ProPublica has gathered the names and backgrounds of the people employed there. We’ve identified some 46 people, including 12 new names we are adding to the list today. Trump and Musk have defended DOGE as a tool for trimming fat from what they see as a bloated bureaucracy. The effects of those cuts have proved crippling, bringing a halt to programs that provided essential services to vulnerable populations across the country and the world..”

See also The Guardian – “Donald Trump’s administration could wrack up a “monumental” bill and is breaking the law by firing government workers on spurious grounds, according to a top labor lawyer.Officials have cited “poor performance” when terminating thousands of federal workers. In many cases it’s not true, according to employees embroiled in the blitz, many of whom are now seeking legal advice. Jacob Malcom was acting deputy assistant secretary for policy and environmental management, and director of the office of policy analysis at the US Department of Interior – until this week, when he resigned in protest against the mass firings of probationary employees. “This is being done under the guise of ‘poor performance’ or ‘skills not aligned with needs’ but neither are true,” he told the Guardian. “First, no evidence was provided that would suggest that poor performance; in fact, I know some of the individuals that were down my chain of supervision and know they were among the best performers…”